The Truce is Over!

Charles Rangel just ended the truce between Clinton and Obama.  

Congressman Rangel, a Hillary Clinton supporter, called Obama’s remarks about Hillary’s LBJ comment, "Absolutely stupid."  He then went on to blame race being a factor in this primary on Obama.  Now maybe Congressman Rangel was unaware of the many comments made by Hillary supporters that could best be described as, "Dog Whistle Politics."

- Billy Shaheen's drug comments, followed by Mark Penn's repeated reference to "cocaine" during a national television program

- Andrew Cuomo's "shuck and jive" comments

- The "imaginary hip black friend" line quoted in the Guardian

- The Bob Kerrey comments about his middle name, followed up with a comment about a "madrassa"

- The right wing email saying that Obama is a muslim manchurian candidate that was forwarded by a Clinton county chair to fellow Democrats

Now reasonable people can disagree about whether this was planned or not, to me it appears to be a pattern.  But to blame these statements on Obama is just silly.

None of this is as galling as how he ended his remarks.  This is the quote:

Rangel also implied that Obama’s admission of prior drug use in his autobiography may have had a financial motive: "I assume that the book was not written for political purposes. It was honest....It was a big mistake for him to have done it [used drugs.] For him to be honest enough to write about it, I guess he thought it might sell books."

Here is the link:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

You know when Hillary said there should be a truce I naively thought it might last 48 hours.  It didn’t even make it 24 hours.

Sad

•  Tips and flames

  by nisleib on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:32:09 AM PDT

  •  You asked for it

    A flame. I've blogged myself blue in the face over these for months. Want "Dog Whistle politics"? Wheeett-whoo. C'mere pooch. Follow the meme.

    Or would you want truth, instead of the dog whistle meme that these are emblematic of racial politics being played by Clinton?

    Billy Shaheen -- forced to resign within 24 hours -- but that doesn't stop people from using it to bash Clinton, even though her involvement was limited to firing him;

    Andrew Cuomo had a brain fart and said the wrong phrase, which clearly wasn't even being used in regard to any one candidate, much less Obama -- and he's not even on the campaign, but that doesn't stop people from bashing Clonton over this;  

    "the imaginary hip black friend" line -- can't shut up everybody, but this line, if it reflects some racsim, isn't racist towards blacks -- it makes fun of the WHITE people supporting Obama, suggesting their support for him is shallow, based on come "coolness" factor -- this didn't come from Clinton, and it's a criticism of shallow voters, not racial politics, but that doesn't stop folks from basking Clinton;

    Bob Kerrey only meant well, and nobody criticized him for the column in which those sentences appeared -- not for six months -- but, the day he endorses Clinton, he's subjected to a maelstrom of outrage -- this was a completely innocuous statement (incorrect about using the term "madrassa", but an understandable mistake, given the word means any "school" in Arabic -- it just doesn't have that meaning in Indonesia, which Kerrey clearly didn't know -- moreover, this didn't come from Clinton, and yet folks use it to bash her;

    The bogus email -- like Kerrey's comments, this isn't even about race - but unlike Kerrey's comments, this WAS malicious. However, the important fact should be that the staffer was forced from the campaign when this affair was brought to the attention of the campaign -- but that doesn't stop folks from bashing Clinton;

    The LBJ comment -- Clinton was trying to make an analogy -- to analogize herself and Obama to LBJ and JFK -- one got civil rights legislation done, while the other was merely hopeful -- yet folks twist her meaning to suggest she was diminishing King. She was really comparing herself and Obama to two white politicians of the past, but folks twist her meaning, and use it to bash her.

    Even the "fairy tale " comment -- another instance where a comment was clearly about one thing -- Obama's position on the Iraq war -- but that has been either misunderstood or deliberately twisted out of context, to fit a meme that the Clintons are making this race about race.

    Planned? If there's a plan involved, it seem to be in the decision to inflame each of these situations and use them to bash Clinton By themselves -- these were either innocuous comments, remarks made with careless phrasing, or were dirty pool that was remedied by firing the responsible person, followed by an apology from the candidate herself. Together, these "incidents" -- some real, and some manufactured -- have been calculatingly twisted and played up to accuse the Clinton campaign of playing dirty pool and racial politics. Reasonable can disagree? I disagree, Any reasonable person, who actually bothers to look at the facts of each of these situations would not reach the conclusion you and so many others have unreasonably reached.

    Some people are undoubtedly playing a Pavlovian game -- blowing a political dog whistle, expecting the herd to get the message. The message is bogus, and the people blowing the whistle are the ones manufacturing outrage. Not everyone hears that message, because they actually look at these events critically, without being distracted by that dog whistle.

    by FischFry on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:19:30 AM PDT

    •  History Vindicates Clinton

      http://www.cbsnews.com/...

      by SignalSuzie on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:35:36 AM PDT

      •  Excellent contribution

        ... and one that helps explain why most of the people who were there when the deeds were done support Clinton, and many of those who were not (including Obama) support Obama.

        by RonK Seattle on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:53:18 AM PDT

    •  I respect your

      argument, but I disagree.

      Yes, Hillary has fired some of the people who have made these comments, and I admire that.  But to what effect?  Once rung you can't un-ring a bell.  Staffers are relatively easy to come by; getting your message out is priceless.

      To me this looks like a pattern that has not stopped.  Bob Johnson yesterday and Charles Rangel today are part of that pattern.

      If the shoe were on the other foot how would you feel?  If people involved with the Obama campaign (albeit loosely) were saying Hillary wasn't emotionally stable enough to be President wouldn't that be below the belt?  

      I find the argument that these statements are all Obama's fault hilarious.  Obama didn't say these things, Hillary and her supporters did.  To say that Obama supporters spread these quotes to dirty up Hillary lacks credulity too.  If Hillary and her supporters don't want Obama to spread around the things her campaign is saying how about they stop saying the things they don't want spread?

      As to you trollrating me I don't think it was justified.

      by nisleib on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:39:44 AM PDT

      •  Unringing a bell?

        I don't even know what you mean. You mean like a bell for a boxing match? So, once the Obama people come out swinging, don't expect them to stop?

        If you mean what Shaheen said, and the bit with the email-- these incidents were extremely damaging to the Clinton campaign -- they started the slide. They have been decisive in Iowa. It's ridiculous to lay the blame for these events at Clinton's feet. If you suggest that she rang that bell, you're still listening to that dog whistle.

        I didn't say any of these things are Obama's fault -- so, you can stop laughing about that. That's the difference here. You see something said by someone who says they support the Clinton campaign, and you want to blame Clinton. I don't blame Obama for the excesses of his supporters. He doesn't control them or their reactions. However, I do think that many Obama supporters have found it easy and believed it advantageous for Obama, for them to attack Clinton in this way. Whether this will prove effective or backfire I can't say.

        As for the rollrating -- you declared an end to the truce -- I can't think of anything more damaging to the Party. Sounds trollworthy to me -- but mostly, I TR'd you because you asked for tips and flames. I couldn't disagree more strongly with the point or the content of your diar. So, I gave it a negative vote.

        by FischFry on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:52:25 AM PDT

      •  Also...

        You ignore the whole import of what I'm saying. It isn't that Obama -- and really, I'm no critical of his supporters, not so much him) is spreading ACTUAL comments by CLinton or her supporters. It's that his supporters are spreading untruths about what was meant -- either deliberate lies and distortions, or just willfully blinding themselves to the real meanings here. The LBJ comment, which got the most play -- was completely innocuous. She said nothing wrong, unless you didn't like the implied criticism of JFK, or the implied comparison of Obama to JFK.But, what you hear about this is that Clinton belittled Dr. King. What's being spread is a couple of words lifted completely out of context -- and the meaning being implied is a complete distortion.

        I could say the same about the other things. No one is "spreading" the fact that Cuomo was praising teh process in Iowa and NH, since candidates had to meet the voters -- istead tehy lift a bad'y chosen phrase out of context and creat a racial meaning that makes no sense if you had the entire sentence, or even the entire thought. Etc., etc.

        You think I'm objecting to Obama's supporters spreading what Clinton and her supporters are saying. I'm not. It's the twisting of what they said -- the lifting out of context, and the deliberate obfuscation of the real meaning -- to creat a cause celebre. That's what's objectionable. You're just buying into the meme here, accepting that she did say something wrong.

        Bill might have been distorting the record on Obama with respect to Iraq, or he might have been offering a fair criticism, given how Obama voted in the Senate. But, that's not what we hear. We hear that he called the Obama campaign a fairy tale" What I ask is: Is that a deliberate lie -- a deliberate distortion of what the former President said, or a reckless misunderstanding created by over-excited passiosn? Either way, it's wrong.

        It would be fine if Obama's supporters spread the message about what Bill did say -- ALL of what he said. But, they aren't doing that -- they're taking two words out of context, and selling some bullshit about him meaning something racial by it....Anyone who listend to him would not have thought that, but anyone who hears someone else saying he said "fairy tale" and this is what he meant by it, might buy it. It's a lie, but it's an effective one.

        Like the old Josef Goebbels line -- "Tell a lie big enough, and they'll all believe it" (or words to that effect).

        by FischFry on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:26:27 AM PDT

  •  Rangel Said This Before The Truce

    CNN should have posted the date Rangel said it. They didn't, leading you to think it was after Obama's statement. It was before Obama's statement. Shame on CNN for not being accurate as to source and the date of the interview in which Rangel said it. But I completely agree with Rangel on the substance of what he said:

    http://thepage.time.com/...

    The Obama campaign was getting blowback from leaders in the black community for his playing the race card. That's why he made the statement about what he knew Clinton said and her intentions. In the face of the coming debate, he didn't want to have it blow up in his face, and he decided to try to take the high ground. Good move on his part.

    by SignalSuzie on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:41:17 AM PDT

    •  I did not know

      that.  The article I linked to came out this morning at 9:55 and there was no date on it.

      by nisleib on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:45:41 AM PDT

•  Okay

  at what point does Hillary get any blame for not keeping her surrogates on a tight leash.

  Becaus of course, she never would have sanctioned Rangel's comments if she knew.

  Look into her heart, you know it's true. :)

  by bam bam on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:32:43 AM PDT

  •  Never

    she lives on plausible deniability.

    So can we agree that this "truce" was as fictional as her husbands being against the war from the start?

    by nisleib on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:34:33 AM PDT

    •  Can we agree that you're an asshole?

      'Cause you're the one declaring the truce is over.

      C'mon--keep picking that scab--you know you want to. The sorry thing is that Obama deserves better than some of his supporters (like you).

      by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:26:01 AM PDT

      •  No need to take it to 11 n/t

        by bflaff on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:37:46 AM PDT

        •  It's been at 11 since McClurkin.

          Thanks for the donut. I needed something to chase my bagel with.

          by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:44:29 AM PDT

  •  'leash" Rangel?

    You have got to be kidding me. Rangel was in power long before Hillary, and before Obama could even vote. Rangel will be in power long after both exit the scene.

    A "surrogate" he is not. Rangel would be more likely to say Hillary is his "surrogate."

    And BTW, if this is "breaking a truce" -- offering a simple take on politics when asked for one -- then you just might be too sensitive for politics.

    by Jim J on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:36:11 AM PDT

    •  Last time I checked NOBODY leashed Rangle

      perhaps the last true, no-holds-barred, liberal.

      by dgil on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:41:00 AM PDT

      •  Maybe so...

        Rangel also implied that Obama’s admission of prior drug use in his autobiography may have had a financial motive: "I assume that the book was not written for political purposes. It was honest....It was a big mistake for him to have done it [used drugs.] For him to be honest enough to write about it, I guess he thought it might sell books."

        If that's what being a "no holds barred liberal" believes, then Rangel is the first and the last of his kind.  

        by Inland on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:46:13 AM PDT

    •  Rangel distorted Obama's comments

      Whether or not Rangel is a Clinton surrogate, his remarks were irresponsible and inflammatory.  I'm extremely disappointed in him.

      by machiado on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:04:45 AM PDT

    •  The diarist doesn't know who Rangel is ...

      ... or where he's been or what he's done ... or anything authentic about the civil right history of the United States.

      In short: stupid.

      by RonK Seattle on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:48:55 AM PDT

  •  At some point, we all have to own this

    If there are arguments to be made and hot debates to be had among the leaders of the African American community, we're going to have to give them room without blaming either campaign. This country belongs to all of us and we own the issue of race in this nation. We certainly have a sordid history of racial injustice in America.

    If our party's going to move ahead without self-destructing and if we are to show that we are progressive and can make room for the airing of differences, then we at Daily Kos should rise above the idiotic frames the media are creating and watch this play out without blaming Senators Obama or Clinton...or their campaigns.

    The blogosphere has a chance to show they're better..more mature and serious than the clowns on television who've gotten crazy with this topic.

    Voters aren't stupid. They'll make up their minds based on what they hear....good, bad, or ugly.

    Obama and Clinton should allow the discussion to go on but they should stay on message, stay "on-truce" and remain above that inevitable discussion down below.

    We all own this. We (many of us at Daily Kos coming from the experience of white privilege) can try to act offended and squelch honest debate about race out there in the African American communities or we could watch it play out and discuss it without emotion..and without destroying our own candidates and their respective campaigns.

    Let's not contribute to an effort that could push serious voters over to the other side.

    by Iddybud on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:50:30 AM PDT

    •  Well Said

      If this whole debacle has shown us anything, it is that racial and sexist tensions are still there, right below the surface.  We do own it, but let's embrace it and work to change it, not fan the flames.

      by loree920 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:15:26 AM PDT

      •  Can't happen until after the primaries.

        At the earliest. We can't have an honest discussion about race, sexism, or homophobia while people are defending their candidates.

        The whacked thing about this is it's not mainly the candidates who are doing this. It's a small fraction of their supporters who keep overplaying their hand and demanding that everyone accept their version of events or else.

        by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:28:47 AM PDT

•  Ignore it

  Don't fall into the trap.  This is what a few dumb supporters of the Clinton campaign wants us to be talking about.

  I withhold my outrage. Let them bark at the moon.  

  by snout on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:34:38 AM PDT

  •  GAWD

    completely!!  

    Ignore it.

    Follow Obama's lead & take the higher ground.

    When we go apeshit is when the Clinton's win.

    by aimeeinkc on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:36:58 AM PDT

    •  You can still hold her accountable.

      She has not done enough to clamp down on this crap. Even if it's not intended to be overtly racist, or a "dog whistle" or whatever you want to call it, it is not acceptable in any democratic campaign. Obama is right about this. Don't overplay your hand. And don't shove it down people's throats.

      I don't believe that Bill and Hillary are racist in the sense of wanting to demean or marginalize people of color. They, like all of us, are the product of a racist society. But they have demonstrated their commitment to being part of the solution. Don't negate that and then expect people to take you seriously. Obama doesn't.

      Don't claim you know what they are thinking or what is in their hearts--thats asshattery. Focus on the behavior and don't overdramatize it.

      by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:33:52 AM PDT

•  What an asshole

  What is it with these people?

  by The Dead Man on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:35:22 AM PDT

  •  The diarist?

    Or are you talking about Rangel?

    by Niniane on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:35:59 AM PDT

    •  You gotta admit

      If you're gonna rekindle the candidate race war here, this diary is the best way to do it.

      Plausible deniability, as one poster ironically puts it upthread.

      by Jim J on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:37:24 AM PDT

    •  Rangel

      Primary Wars aside, his comments are those of someone intentionally being a dickhead.

      by The Dead Man on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:39:10 AM PDT

      •  Or a politician, in the midst of supporting his

        favorite... No worse than JJ Jr. but then he is a dickhead politician too.

        by Niniane on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:51:35 AM PDT

•  It's the same game from the same team

  we know it well.

  The Clinton's have always made their campaigns about being victims and then attacking rapaciously. That's what the Clintons were doing in New Hampshire.

  They play the victim and they attack. It's the Clinton m.o.

  Look at today's WaPo, which includes another Rangle quote, amid a new raft of Clinton camp "victim/attacks":

  Rep. John Lewis (Ga.), Clinton Supporter: "He is no Martin Luther King Jr. I knew Martin Luther King. I knew Bobby Kennedy. I knew President Kennedy. You need more than speech-making. You need someone who is prepared to provide bold leadership."

  Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (Mo.), a Clinton supporter: "Instead of the Democratic Party celebrating and wallowing in euphoria over the fact that our party will in all probability nominate a woman or an African American, we have engaged in 'Swift boat' actions that we all say we deplore. The Clintons have been Swift-boated in this thing."

  Rep. Charles Rangel, Clinton Supporter: "I'm angry because I'm looking for the white people that are insulting me, and I can't find them,"

  James Carville, Clinton supporter:  "Someone said, 'You can't unring a bell' -- well, the biggest bell in American politics just got rung. I'm shaken by the whole thing."

  The Clinton camp is putting down the race card? Doesn't sound like it to me. Those are heavy hitters TAKING UP the race card one week after this all got started.

  They are playing the victim with one hand and attacking with the other. It's obvious. This isn't about "race," it's never been about race, this is about the Clintons and their friends doing whatever it takes to get back the White House.

  by kid oakland on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:36:38 AM PDT

  •  Indeed

    From the press conference:

    Q: A moment ago said that you ordered your surrogates not to play the race card.

    CLINTON: That's right.

    Q: And Rangel was clear on what you wanted?

    CLINTON: Crystal.

    Q: Any chance Cuomo ignored the order?

    CLINTON: Ignored the order?

    Q: Any chance he just forgot about it?

    CLINTON: No.

    Q: Any chance Bob Johnson left your office and said, "She's just wrong"?

    CLINTON: No.

    Q: When Mark Penn spoke to your surrogates and ordered them not to play the race card, any chance they ignored him?

    CLINTON: Have you ever spent time in a political campaign?

    Q: No ma'am.

    CLINTON: Ever served in a White House?

    Q: No ma'am.

    CLINTON: Ever put your life in a pollster's hands, ask him to put his career in yours?

    Q: No ma'am.

    CLINTON: We follow orders, son. We follow orders or I lose. It's that simple. Are we clear?

    Q: Yes ma'am.

    CLINTON: Are we clear?

    Q: Crystal.  Senator Clinton, I have just one more question before I call Charlie Rangel and Andrew Cuomo: If you gave an order that the race card wasn't to be played, and your orders are always followed, then why would Obama be in danger, why would it be necessary to issue a second "public" call for truce?

    CLINTON: Sometimes men take matters into their own hands.

    Q: No ma'am. You made it clear just a moment ago that your surrogates never take matters into their own hands. Your men follow orders or Clintons lose. So the race card shouldn't have been played at all, should it have, Senator?

    CLINTON: You little bastard.

    by Adam B on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:46:51 AM PDT

    •  Huh? Link? (nt)

      by Cream City on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:11:50 AM PDT

      •  Have you ever seen a movie? NT

        .

        by Adam B on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:18:17 AM PDT

    •  Wow, nice made up fluff .....

      now how about a real quote:
      "ain't no black folks in Iowa" ... guess who said that?

      by emsprater on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:14:26 AM PDT

      •  Michelle Obama.

        So?  

        "We had a miraculous victory in Iowa," Michelle Obama said. "Ain't no black people in Iowa! Something big, something new is happening. Let's build the future we all know is possible. Let's show our kids that America is ready for Barack Obama right now."

        by Adam B on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:19:10 AM PDT

        •  Don't

          give full quotes Adam, it is harder to spin them.

          by nisleib on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:23:11 AM PDT

        •  You think that's something?

          how about this Michelle Obama quote?

          by dhonig on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:36:57 AM PDT

          •  It was just talking about *her* family

            Cute edit. Full story:

            A Chicago Sun-Times columnist, Jennifer Hunter, saw the comments and wrote today, "She didn't elaborate, but it could be interpreted as a swipe at the Clintons."

            Asked to respond in a conference call with reporters, Sen. Obama said, "She wasn't making any reference to that."

            "Anybody who's been listening to Michelle on the stump," Senator Obama explained on a conference call with reporters, "She's talked about the importance of family, and the need for our family to be sure that we're thinking about our kids during the process of this campaign.

            "She's repeated that in every stump speech, so there are no refrences behind her point that we have an administration that talks about family values but doesn’t follow through on it. And that part of the challenge for us in this campaign is making sure that we are talking the talk, but also walking the walk. That's all it was referring to," Obama said.

            The Obama campaign also distributed a more complete transcript of Michelle Obama's speech that backs up the senator's account.

            Here's the full version:

            "Our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I'm home before bedtime."

            by Adam B on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:39:41 AM PDT

            •  Not my edit

              and I will look at it, and replay it, when I get off this boring conference call, and retract if appropriate.

              by dhonig on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:56:26 AM PDT

            •  Okay, I looked at it again

              and must stand by it.  A more accurate transcript would be:

              "if you can't run your own house, (pause), you certainly can't run the White House (pause for applause).  Can't do it (pause again for applause). ..."

              The rest seems like cover to get this line out.  

              by dhonig on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:00:53 AM PDT

  •  It truly is disgusting.....

    Karl Rove must be really proud that the some democrats have begun using his playbook.

    by cometman on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:59:14 AM PDT

  •  Yup

    And her supporters on this site are in the same mould, too.

    by maxomai on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:28:50 AM PDT

•  Untwist your panties

  This is a non-story.  And, good luck telling Charlie Rangel what to do.

  by M Sullivan on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:37:31 AM PDT

•  Clearly, we've stopped talking about issues

  any more. Taking our cue from Fox News, who are having a blast keeping this alive, we would rather sling mud and innuendoes back and forth and call one another names, than to see a Democrat in the White House.  Good going, people!

  by SottoVoce on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:38:13 AM PDT

•  Obama Supporter's

  Follow the lead of Senator Obama and take the high ground.  Turn our anger into action.

  Here's a challenge, volunteer for the campaign.  If you don't have a local office, get on the web site and sign up to make calls.  Flaming away on the internet is not going to elect Obama, action will.

  by loree920 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:41:27 AM PDT

  •  Indeed!

    Yes!!

    by aimeeinkc on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:42:17 AM PDT

  •  also...

    at the risk of being troll rated into oblivion, please recognize what this man is saying. if you can't see this, then what color glasses do you have on?

    by titotitotito on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:49:07 AM PDT

    •  Charlie Rangel?

      I don't put stock in anything that man says.  Charlie speaks, I shake my head.  This man's words mean absolutely nothing to me.  I just want to elect Sen. Obama, I don't have time for the Charlie Rangel's of the world.

      by loree920 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:51:46 AM PDT

      •  omg. charlie rangel is a national treasure.

        by titotitotito on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:52:53 AM PDT

        •  Once in reactionary mode

          ...all contrary thoughts/politicians have to be jettisoned, no matter how ingrained in the Democratic Party.

          by jmknapp on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:01:01 AM PDT

        •  Charlie Rangle is most definitely a mixed bag.

          When he bloviates, he usually happens to be right. His ideology, to the extent he has one, is just fine. And he's got courage.

          He's also as ward-healer as it gets, and talks out of both sides of his anus.

          You're probably right. He's a national treasure. His effect on New York City politics is much less consistent.

          by Dvd Avins on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:22:02 AM PDT

        •  Yup

          Kinda like Bozo the Clown that way.

          by maxomai on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:33:28 AM PDT

      •  And how do you feel about John Lewis?

        by RonK Seattle on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:58:33 AM PDT

        •  John Lewis is a great man

          so is Rangel for that matter.  Unfortunately, Rangel causes harm when he speaks the way he does.  I don't think that his words are unifying.  I don't listen to Rangel, sorry, I just feel he is a loose cannon.

          by loree920 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:23:02 AM PDT

    •  and i was referring to the only thing

      hillary clinton has ever actually said... the dust-up about lbj and mlk that got totally misrepresented in the media by someone. charles rangel calls this absolutely stupid. and it is.

      by titotitotito on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:51:59 AM PDT

      •  Obama never made "remarks" on that

        So what is Rangle talking about exactly?

        by VirginiaDem on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:06:01 AM PDT

•  Couldn't get a rise...

  ...over here, so you thought you needed to do this?

  STFU.

  by rserven on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:41:44 AM PDT

  •  That was not

    my diary and my comment over there was a joke.

    by nisleib on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:22:10 AM PDT

    •  So's this diary.

      my comment over there was a joke

      by rserven on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:30:02 AM PDT

      •  But Rangel gave them cover...

        To ignore what their candidate said and resurrect this shitstorm. They're morally justified--just ask them. Didn't you get the memo?

        / snark

        by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:37:48 AM PDT

•  of course it is a strategy, everythin is calculat

  ed with the clintons. They don't sneeze until they poll it! ANd don't forget the "spadework" comment she made!

  by lookout1967 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:47:58 AM PDT

•  I am going to

  say the timeline of Rangels comments puts him just ahead of the announced detente between the candidates. He got his shots in just under the wire.

  Now, we must realize of course the pols who have endorsed HRC will be speaking out in favor of HRC and criticizing obama.. that's politics.

  Certainly, there is bound to be some jealousy from the Rangels,Lewis' ect with a young whippersnapper like Obama soaring as he has and they are loyal to the clintons.. so be it.

  I want obama to come in and shake it all up. He is still not too seasoned by washington to owe them all a bunch a favors if he gets the nod. I like that.

  by Hawkjt on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 07:55:17 AM PDT

  •  Thank you -- sanity and context

    since this is yesterday's story, diaried then -- so the  motivations of this diarist in not making clear the chronology make this even more suspect.

    by Cream City on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:14:11 AM PDT

    •  Sorry

      My understanding was that Rangel made his remarks this morning on a NY1 and that the truce went through yesterday.

      If I am wrong I apologize.

      by nisleib on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:21:32 AM PDT

      •  We need solid sourcing before we all go nuts n/t

        by Pacific John on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:31:34 AM PDT

        •  Why let that stop us?

          It never has before. With friends like these, Obama doesn't need any enemies.

          by homogenius on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:39:07 AM PDT

•  Let them keep bickering against each other

  John Edwards will zoom right to the front!

  by mconvente on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:02:40 AM PDT

•  While Rangel's comments

  are groundless, inflammatory, despicable, etc., I think they came out about the same time as the "truce" started - I think we can call it the last pre-truce salvo.  Though I can't say I expect a lot of maturity from here on out given the record to date.

  by clambake on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:15:17 AM PDT

  •  I read more on this

    and discovered that Rangel's comments were actually in response to the proposed truce.  That paints it in a different light, but we can still attribute it to a loose cannon and not an indication of how the Clinton campaign will behave in the immediate future.  I still don't think they will be able to resist longer term, but it may hold a few days!  You have a lot of people (in both camps) that are hard to muzzle and will put their own stamp on the message the candidates are trying to put out

    by clambake on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:52:48 AM PDT

•  False alarm

  Rangle launched yesterday before the truce was public.

  Stand down.

  by Pacific John on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:25:04 AM PDT

•  I do love the drug comment though

  Bill Clinton - I didn't inhale

  George W. - When I was young and irresponsible I was young and irresponsible.

  Barack Obama - Look. I used drugs when I was a teenager. It was a mistake.

  How refreshing to have a candidate actually tell the truth for a change!

  by Travis Stark on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:32:29 AM PDT

•  I'm for the truce on race and gender issues

  because the longer this goes on even if Obama becomes the nominee it will be nomination not worth having. Right now Mccain is beating both Hillary and Obama is trial heats. While I don't think Hillary could ever beat McCain this stuff will reneder them both unelectable in the end. You Michigan people had better vote for Mitt.

  by nevadadem on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:36:32 AM PDT

•  I heard

  Hillary Clinton put cream in her coffee this morning.

  Conniving bitch.

  by brux on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:42:17 AM PDT

•  Rangel seems dense

  His comments don't even make any sense.

  I'll let Senator Obama answer the charges, if he feels like it.

  Other than making a fool of himself, Rangel said nothing of importance.

  by DAVE DIAL on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:11:55 AM PDT